Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
78 lines (59 loc) · 10 KB

mitigations.md

File metadata and controls

78 lines (59 loc) · 10 KB

Mitigation Strategies Analysis for ariya/phantomjs

Mitigation Strategy: Input Sanitization and Validation for PhantomJS Scripts

  • Description:

    1. Identify PhantomJS Input Points: Pinpoint all locations where external data is passed into PhantomJS scripts. This includes command-line arguments used when launching PhantomJS, data injected into the JavaScript execution context via PhantomJS APIs (like evaluate or injectJs), and any files read by PhantomJS scripts based on external input.
    2. Define Validation Rules: For each input point, establish strict validation rules. These rules should define the expected data type, format, length, and allowed character sets. For example, if expecting a URL, validate it against a URL schema and potentially a whitelist of allowed domains.
    3. Implement Sanitization Routines: Develop sanitization routines to neutralize potentially harmful characters or code within the input data. This is crucial when constructing strings within PhantomJS scripts. For instance, when embedding user-provided strings into JavaScript code, properly escape JavaScript special characters to prevent injection.
    4. Apply Validation and Sanitization: Integrate the validation and sanitization routines at each identified input point before the data is used by PhantomJS. Reject invalid input and use sanitized input within PhantomJS scripts.
    5. Minimize Dynamic Script Generation: Reduce or eliminate the practice of dynamically generating JavaScript code within your application and executing it in PhantomJS with user-controlled input. If dynamic script generation is unavoidable, apply extreme caution and rigorous sanitization to the code generation process itself.

  • List of Threats Mitigated:

    • Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) in PhantomJS Context (High Severity): Prevents attackers from injecting malicious JavaScript code that executes within the PhantomJS environment, potentially leading to data theft, session hijacking, or further exploitation within the PhantomJS context.
    • Remote Code Execution (RCE) via Injection (High Severity): Mitigates the risk of input injection vulnerabilities that could be leveraged to execute arbitrary code on the server or within the PhantomJS process itself. This is a less direct but potential consequence of severe injection flaws.
    • PhantomJS Script Injection (Medium to High Severity): Prevents attackers from injecting malicious PhantomJS-specific commands or scripts through input parameters, potentially manipulating PhantomJS behavior for malicious purposes.

  • Impact:

    • Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) in PhantomJS Context: High Risk Reduction - Significantly reduces the risk.
    • Remote Code Execution (RCE) via Injection: High Risk Reduction - Significantly reduces the risk.
    • PhantomJS Script Injection: Moderate to High Risk Reduction - Reduces the risk depending on the injection vector.

  • Currently Implemented:

    • Currently Implemented: Partially. Some basic input validation might be present in certain areas, but a comprehensive and systematic approach specifically tailored for PhantomJS input points is likely missing. Requires code review focused on PhantomJS interactions.

  • Missing Implementation:

    • Missing Implementation: A thorough security code review is needed to identify all input points to PhantomJS scripts. Robust validation and sanitization logic needs to be implemented at each of these points. This requires code modifications in the application and potentially within any custom PhantomJS scripts.

Mitigation Strategy: Restrict Network Access for PhantomJS (PhantomJS-Specific Configuration)

  • Description:

    1. Identify Necessary Outbound Destinations: Analyze the legitimate network destinations that PhantomJS must access to perform its intended functions. This might include specific websites for scraping, internal services, or data sources.
    2. Configure PhantomJS Network Settings (if possible): Explore PhantomJS's command-line options and scripting APIs to restrict its network capabilities directly. While PhantomJS's network control features might be limited compared to modern browsers, investigate options like proxy settings or any available network access control flags.
    3. Implement Application-Level Network Control: If PhantomJS itself lacks granular network control, implement network restrictions at the application level. This could involve:
      • Proxying PhantomJS Requests: Route all PhantomJS outbound requests through a controlled proxy server. Configure the proxy to only allow connections to the identified necessary destinations.
      • Firewall Rules (Application Layer): If running PhantomJS in a container or VM, use application-layer firewalls (or container network policies) to enforce network access restrictions based on destination URLs or domains, if possible.
    4. Monitor PhantomJS Network Activity: Log and monitor PhantomJS's network connections to detect any unauthorized or suspicious outbound traffic.

  • List of Threats Mitigated:

    • Command and Control (C2) Communication from PhantomJS (High Severity): If PhantomJS is compromised, restricting network access can prevent it from establishing connections to external C2 servers controlled by attackers.
    • Data Exfiltration via PhantomJS (High Severity): Limiting outbound network access reduces the risk of a compromised PhantomJS instance being used to exfiltrate sensitive data to unauthorized external locations.
    • Malicious Resource Loading by PhantomJS (Medium Severity): Network restrictions can prevent PhantomJS from loading resources from malicious or untrusted domains, reducing the risk of drive-by downloads or exploitation via malicious web content.

  • Impact:

    • Command and Control (C2) Communication from PhantomJS: High Risk Reduction - Significantly reduces the risk.
    • Data Exfiltration via PhantomJS: High Risk Reduction - Significantly reduces the risk.
    • Malicious Resource Loading by PhantomJS: Moderate Risk Reduction - Reduces the risk.

  • Currently Implemented:

    • Currently Implemented: Likely No. PhantomJS network access is probably not specifically restricted beyond general network infrastructure controls. PhantomJS-specific network configuration is likely not in place.

  • Missing Implementation:

    • Missing Implementation: Requires investigation of PhantomJS's network configuration options. Implementation might involve application-level proxying or firewall rules tailored for PhantomJS's network traffic. Monitoring of PhantomJS network activity needs to be established.

Mitigation Strategy: Minimize Dynamic Script Execution in PhantomJS

  • Description:

    1. Code Review for Dynamic Script Usage: Conduct a thorough code review to identify all instances where your application dynamically generates JavaScript code and executes it within PhantomJS (e.g., using evaluate with dynamically constructed strings, or injectJs with dynamically created scripts).
    2. Refactor to Static Scripts: Where possible, refactor your application to use static, pre-defined JavaScript scripts for PhantomJS interactions. Move logic and data processing to the application side instead of dynamically generating code within PhantomJS.
    3. Parameterize Static Scripts: If some dynamic behavior is necessary, parameterize static JavaScript scripts. Pass data as arguments to pre-defined functions within the static scripts instead of constructing entire scripts dynamically. Ensure these parameters are rigorously validated and sanitized (see Input Sanitization strategy).
    4. Restrict evaluate and injectJs Usage: Minimize the use of PhantomJS's evaluate and injectJs functions, especially when dealing with external or untrusted data. These functions are common vectors for injection vulnerabilities when used improperly.
    5. Secure Script Loading: If loading external JavaScript files into PhantomJS using injectJs, ensure these files are loaded from trusted sources and are subject to integrity checks (e.g., checksum verification) to prevent tampering.

  • List of Threats Mitigated:

    • JavaScript Injection (High Severity): Reduces the attack surface for JavaScript injection vulnerabilities by minimizing dynamic script generation, which is a primary source of such vulnerabilities.
    • Code Injection (General) (Medium to High Severity): Minimizing dynamic script execution reduces the risk of various code injection attacks that could be exploited through PhantomJS's script execution capabilities.
    • Reduced Attack Surface (General): By limiting dynamic script generation, you simplify the codebase and reduce the overall attack surface related to PhantomJS interactions.

  • Impact:

    • JavaScript Injection: High Risk Reduction - Significantly reduces the risk.
    • Code Injection (General): Moderate to High Risk Reduction - Reduces the risk depending on the specific injection vector.
    • Reduced Attack Surface: Moderate Risk Reduction - Improves overall security posture.

  • Currently Implemented:

    • Currently Implemented: Unknown. The extent of dynamic script execution within the project and the awareness of its security implications are unclear. Code review is needed to assess current practices.

  • Missing Implementation:

    • Missing Implementation: Requires a code review to identify and analyze dynamic script execution patterns. Refactoring efforts are needed to minimize or eliminate dynamic script generation and transition to static, parameterized scripts where possible. Secure script loading practices need to be implemented if external scripts are used.